Car info is in the sig. :):)

The problem is that the car never gets "good" gas mileage. Its plenty broke in with almost 11k miles on it. The highest we have had is a little over 28 and that trip was literally ALL highway with me driving at 70. It constantly gets around 25-26 and the majority of the driving is on the highway. All the info is in the MPG Tune.

Ive literally checked everything I could. Already ran Seafoam in the gas tank. Tire PSI is at 35 cold and never goes above 38 when on the road. All the standard stuff has been checked.

Now, should I take the car to the dealer and ask what is up with it? What all could they feasibly check that I couldnt?

Thanks in advance!!!

There are several factors as to why your MPG isn't as good as others. If everything is in okay condition then I would say it is either because you're not using cruise control, are varying your speed, live in a hilly area, or accelerating hard, lots of stop and go (or slow down, speed up). Also using your A/C will keep the MPGs lower. Try cruising at 65mph and see if that increases it.

Those are the only things I can think of right now off the top of my head as to why your MPG could be suffering.

bad fuel filter

65 will not make the MPG improve 5 miles a gallon maybe 1 or 2. Especially when we are traveling 70. We rarely see stop and go traffic and rarely traffic in general on the route we take. 30 or 31 would be acceptable but even our fill up today was 25.8 with almost ALL highway.

We do travel a hilly highway almost all the time but again this will not make the gas mileage that bad. Cruise control is ALWAYS used.

The best MPG we got was using the A/C. Again, there is no way the A/C will kill 5 MPG.


Also, bad fuel filter on a 5 month old car?? What makes you think that?


My big ole V8 gets better MPG on the highway than the Malibu. That should not happen.

65 will not make the MPG improve 5 miles a gallon maybe 1 or 2. Especially when we are traveling 70. We rarely see stop and go traffic and rarely traffic in general on the route we take. 30 or 31 would be acceptable but even our fill up today was 25.8 with almost ALL highway.

We do travel a hilly highway almost all the time but again this will not make the gas mileage that bad. Cruise control is ALWAYS used.

The best MPG we got was using the A/C. Again, there is no way the A/C will kill 5 MPG.


Also, bad fuel filter on a 5 month old car?? What makes you think that?


My big ole V8 gets better MPG on the highway than the Malibu. That should not happen.

Believe me or not, but I seem to get better gas mileage going 75 than 65 and better gas mileage going 55 than 60-65mph. I don't know why, but I've experimented with my car and I've found the little sweet spots and mph where she puts out the best MPG possible. Maybe try doing the same thing. Looks like you drive it a lot (11k miles in 5 months) so I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.

I've had my LT for 3 months and have almost 10k miles...Lots of opportunities to test this out. Let us know how it goes!

65 will not make the MPG improve 5 miles a gallon maybe 1 or 2. Especially when we are traveling 70. We rarely see stop and go traffic and rarely traffic in general on the route we take. 30 or 31 would be acceptable but even our fill up today was 25.8 with almost ALL highway.

We do travel a hilly highway almost all the time but again this will not make the gas mileage that bad. Cruise control is ALWAYS used.

The best MPG we got was using the A/C. Again, there is no way the A/C will kill 5 MPG.


Also, bad fuel filter on a 5 month old car?? What makes you think that?


My big ole V8 gets better MPG on the highway than the Malibu. That should not happen.

Add 70mph, hilly highway, and a/c and you could easily see a 5mpg drop.

Add 70mph, hilly highway, and a/c and you could easily see a 5mpg drop.
That was the BEST MPG. It has never been up near 28 since. We are averaging 25.something in a car that sees MAYBE 20% of its driving in the city.

You can not attribute that big of a drop to the road being hilly, A/C and going 70. At MOST it should get 33 because that is how the car is tested with the new EPA standards.

Beginning with 2008 models, all fuel economy estimates based on new test methods, which EPA finalized in December 2006. The new methods better account for actual driving conditions that can lower fuel economy, such as high speed, aggressive driving, use of air conditioning, and cold temperature operation. The new estimates will give drivers a more accurate estimate of the fuel economy they are likely to achieve on the road. Taken from the EPA website.

I wouldnt be upset if the car saw 80% of its time driving in the city but it doesnt. Hell, we went on a 120 mile trip yesterday on a FLAT highway and it still managed to only get 28.4 on the DIC going at 70-72 MPH.

Believe me or not, but I seem to get better gas mileage going 75 than 65 and better gas mileage going 55 than 60-65mph. I don't know why, but I've experimented with my car and I've found the little sweet spots and mph where she puts out the best MPG possible. Maybe try doing the same thing. Looks like you drive it a lot (11k miles in 5 months) so I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.

I've had my LT for 3 months and have almost 10k miles...Lots of opportunities to test this out. Let us know how it goes!

You have the 4 speed trans so it would be completely different for you. Yea, the car does have lots of miles so Id figured after this much we would see at 30 for MPG but not even close yet. Thats why Im wondering.

Another factor could be if you have alot of weight in the car like suitcases or whatever it may be. That can contribute to less MPG due to more strain being put on the engine. I normally make trips to New York and I always get about 32 MPG for the whole trip there, I go 70 with the cruise on.

As was stated earlier seems like the faster I would drive the better the gas mileage got :confused: on a recent 1300 mile trip to Tucson Az. going across the desert at 75/80mph I was getting getting 32.3 mpg tops with cruise on all the way according to the DIC :D

There is virtually nothing in the car except the wife and I.

Yea, there is something going on with our car. This morning started it up and it smelled VERY VERY VERY rich.

There is virtually nothing in the car except the wife and I.

Yea, there is something going on with our car. This morning started it up and it smelled VERY VERY VERY rich.

Take it in! :cool:

Called the dealer and the soonest they can get it in is Thursday. Cant do that because we are moving on Friday so its just going to have to wait until we get up to the new place. Its a bigger town so hopefully the dealerships will be more understanding.

Also, bad fuel filter on a 5 month old car?? What makes you think that?


My big ole V8 gets better MPG on the highway than the Malibu. That should not happen.

1 batch of bad gas could cause this, ever fill up at a "no name" gas station? or while the truck are refilling the station?

Never. Its usually Shell or BP.

The deal is the car never got good gas MPG to begin with. So unless the FF was really dirty when it was brand new then I doubt its a problem.

bballr - sorry for you bad MPG's - I get 26 from my V6 with normal 80% hwy - 20% city. On a long trip to Maine all highway we averaged over 30 mpg.

The smaller hp from the 4 cyl is exactly why I didnt chose that model. Chevy was notorious in late 80's putting small engines in their cars trying to boost mpg's but they actually made the engines overwork and get worse gas milage then the a larger engine. I saw this exactly in Chevy S-10 blazer with the 2.8l vesus the 4.3l

By all means take it in and have them give it a once over - see if they find anything wrong with the tune or computer program - fuel pressure - Mass Air meter - etc....

If they find nothing - have someone else drive the car for a few days and see if its your driving style.

Let us know how you make out.

Well Ive changed my driving style with the car from being crazy to acting like there is an egg on the pedal. It all really doesnt change the MPG much if at all. Its usually in a range of 24-26 no matter how we drive. Thats what is driving me insane.

Ive got 31 in my Firebird Formula so I know I can drive a car to get good gas mileage.

Car info is in the sig. :):)

The problem is that the car never gets "good" gas mileage. Its plenty broke in with almost 11k miles on it. The highest we have had is a little over 28 and that trip was literally ALL highway with me driving at 70. It constantly gets around 25-26 and the majority of the driving is on the highway. All the info is in the MPG Tune.

Ive literally checked everything I could. Already ran Seafoam in the gas tank. Tire PSI is at 35 cold and never goes above 38 when on the road. All the standard stuff has been checked.

Now, should I take the car to the dealer and ask what is up with it? What all could they feasibly check that I couldnt?

Thanks in advance!!!
I would be happy if I had your MPG. My MPG is worse. But we can't compare because mine has different engine and trans. I get only around 20-21 for city driving. I don't make a lot of high way trip. My only high way trip last year was 28. And I don't expect to get better than that. I feel that my gas pedal is very sensitive. My speed is easily in 45-50 range when I just "touch" the gas pedal. I mean it: "touch". If I press it a little harder the speed jumps up quickly and I can see the INST MPG drop immediately. My idle RPM seems high: around 800. You make me think to bring my car in for the dealer to check too.
My question is if I will be charged for diagnostic if they don't find any thing? I have not visited any dealers for repair for a couple of years. I am afraid that they might make thing worse.

If you are under the bumper to bumper still you are completely covered.

Your MPG doesnt seem that bad for the V6 anyways. I think its rated at 17 city/26 highway. Also 800 is a pretty normal idle for an auto trans car.

No, no. Mine is not v6. It is 4 cyl/4 speed transny

No, no. Mine is not v6. It is 4 cyl/4 speed transny

Ohhhh, then its 22/30 so you still arent that bad.

I have the 4 cylinder 4 speed as well. It's a 2008 Malbu 1LT. We average around 21/22 and that is all city driving. On the highway we are up around 30 to 33 depending on where I set the cruise control. One thing I have noticed. If I fill up at a station that uses the 10% ethanol blend then my mileage and power is horrible. But there are few stations that still sell what they call "real gas" no ethanol. When I use the "Real Gas" my power is much better and the MPG's are as I described above.

20-21 sounds normal to me. My V6 is averaging in total 20, but in the last three fill-ups, 21.7.

Ecotec's SUCK for mpg's We had the 2.2 eco in my wife's old cavy and it was terrible as well.

Hello everyone. Newby here.
We have an 08 2LT with the 2.4l we absolutly love the car, it is a year old and we have 33k on the clock. We have been getting 30-32 MPG HWY until the last few months now we are only getting 25-27 hwy out of it. I have heard these do not have fuel filters except the one in the tank. Is this true?
Any ideas what might be the cause of this?

Thanks,

Also, I have an 08 2.2l cobalt it is a year old and I have 31K on it, and my best tank of gas was 41 mpg all Hwy. But it will vary depending on where I fill it up at. There is one Chevron I can fill at and get 37-41 mph. others I will get 35-36.5 consistantly. if I use HEB or Walmart gas I am doing good to get 33 mpg.

Ecotec's SUCK for mpg's We had the 2.2 eco in my wife's old cavy and it was terrible as well.

Im sorry but no they dont. Ive had friends with a 5 speed Grand Am with the Eco and they get 36-38 MPG on the highway. With the 4 speed auto they get around 32-34 in the Grand Am as well.

Ive seen some Cavy's and Sunfire in the 40s with the manual transmission.

Yep I can get 41 MPG in my 5 speed cobalt.

Im sorry but no they dont. Ive had friends with a 5 speed Grand Am with the Eco and they get 36-38 MPG on the highway. With the 4 speed auto they get around 32-34 in the Grand Am as well.

Ive seen some Cavy's and Sunbirds in the 40s with the manual transmission.

there was never an eco in the sunbird. the eco's didn't hit the gm market till late 02 early 03.

the the grand am depends on the year.

me and my wife both had cavys at one point...hers the 2.2 eco DOHC mine the 2.2 OHV. her a stick mine an auto. i was pushing early 30's she was pushing early 20's

Edited my post. I meant Sunfire.

There is something wrong if you are not getting mileage equal to the window sticker. My 2009 ecotec 4A gets 23 in town, 25 in mixed driving, and 31 on pure highway with cruise control at about 70. Original poster - I hope your dealer is diligent and commited to finding a problem -- because there is a problem. Good luck.

Edited my post. I meant Sunfire.

werd still depends on the year. been dealing with j's for since 99 and rarely see the eco as a decent MPG. the 2200 and the 2.4 where always better (shittier for hp though)

...If I fill up at a station that uses the 10% ethanol blend then my mileage and power is horrible. But there are few stations that still sell what they call "real gas" no ethanol. When I use the "Real Gas" my power is much better and the MPG's are as I described above.
All of my recorded mpg's were from 10% ethanol. It is the law here. I had tried to find local stations with "real gas" but in vain.

All of my recorded mpg's were from 10% ethanol. It is the law here. I had tried to find local stations with "real gas" but in vain.


X2

No more real gas here either. Stickers say that the gas has up to 10% ethanol.

X2

No more real gas here either. Stickers say that the gas has up to 10% ethanol.

Yeah it's getting harder to find the stations around here that sell real gas. And when you do you can expect to pay 5 to 15 cents more per gallon depending on the station. But my car drives so much better with it. So does the mower :)

Pretty much everything runs longer on 'real' gas. But it's strange that people are reporting poorer performance with 10% ethanol. Supposedly most vehicles actually get a mild performance boost (assuming the gas isn't cheating on the grade rating) versus the same grade of non-ethanol fuel. My experience has been that I don't notice a lick of difference so far as power goes, but my economy drops by around 10% with E10. So, getting 30 highway with my 3.6L LTZ on regular gas drops back to 27 on ethanol. Winter blend fuels seem to cause a similar drop..

Here in Nebraska, our midgrade gasoline is blended while the regular 87 octane gasoline isn't. I never really noticed a substantial fuel economy jump when I tried the regular gas for a few weeks in the old Grand Prix - maybe an increase of 1MPG.

Last night I was running some errands and checked the MPG on the highway. It was about 95 degrees, A/C was blowing. I am running 87 octane "real gas". I had the cruise set at 65 mph and on the straight and level stretches of highway the MPG was staying at 38. It would go up and down through some of the hills. 2.4 4 speed 1LT 2008

Only about 700 miles on mine and I'm getting 22 mpg city...much better than my Grand Prix GXP which was about 12 in the city, that V8 did sound sweet though ;)

I don't understand how 10% ethanol could have a meaningful difference on fuel economy. Ethanol has about 80% of the energy of gasoline. So even at 10% ethanol, your energy content is only reduced by 2%.(calculation: 10% ethanol times 20% energy loss equals 2%.) 2% of 26MPG is is .5mpg. Basically very close to zero.

Some folks say they lose 10% mileage with 10% ethanol. THat makes no sense. That assumes ethanol has no energy content. Do people driving Impalas on E85 lose 85% of their mileage? So an Impala on gas gets 26 MPG and an Impala on E85 gets 3.9MPG? (calculation: 26 times 15%.)

My point: there is an incorrect assumption out there that 10% ethanol meaningfully reduces mileage. I don't think it does, because ethanol has almost as much energy content as gasoline. So 10% ethanol is not part of the MPG problem imo.

10% Ethanol makes my Formula get around .5-1 MPG difference and its rather consistent. Havent drove the Malibu on straight gas yet as we got it after the Jan 1st switch over here in TN.

However, I seriously doubt its the case of my car getting 16 to 24% less MPG than it should get on the highway.

I don't understand how 10% ethanol could have a meaningful difference on fuel economy. Ethanol has about 80% of the energy of gasoline. So even at 10% ethanol, your energy content is only reduced by 2%.(calculation: 10% ethanol times 20% energy loss equals 2%.) 2% of 26MPG is is .5mpg. Basically very close to zero.

Some folks say they lose 10% mileage with 10% ethanol. THat makes no sense. That assumes ethanol has no energy content. Do people driving Impalas on E85 lose 85% of their mileage? So an Impala on gas gets 26 MPG and an Impala on E85 gets 3.9MPG? (calculation: 26 times 15%.)

My point: there is an incorrect assumption out there that 10% ethanol meaningfully reduces mileage. I don't think it does, because ethanol has almost as much energy content as gasoline. So 10% ethanol is not part of the MPG problem imo.

Thank you! I've been meaning to say something about this, but I didn't feel like doing the research again to get the numbers...

I got my personal best in my Mazda 3 w/10% ethanol (36mpg). The pro's outweigh the cons. The best is during the winter because ethanol is an antifreeze for the gas.

Hey, you can point out energy content numbers all day, but I keep detailed fuel economy logs, and have for pretty much the past decade. And every vehicle I've owned has consistently returned around 10% lower fuel economy (similar driving style and conditions) when using E10 versus regular non-ethanol blends. There's been some discussion elsewhere that the oil companies may be using lower grade 'gas' for the non-ethanol part, since ethanol effectively raises the octane, and that maybe this has something to do with the larger than expected drop in economy.

Even so, it's a bit hilarious trying to make out that a 10% loss on a non-ethanol prepared car using E10 automatically equates to a 1% loss for every 1% increase in ethanol content in the fuel being used in E85-capable vehicles. Engine tuning is different on the E85 vehicles, as the ECU adjusts for the fuel- my 07 Av, for example, had at least one TSB for a reprogram related to problems because of this.

E10 vs. non-E10 samples for 3 of the vehicles I've owned, all highway trips:

08 Malibu 3.6l (current):
27mpg/30mpg

07 Avalanche LTZ 5.3l 4x4:
18mpg/20mpg

04 Malibu 3.5l V6:
31mpg/34mpg

And these weren't one-time occurances. Those numbers are rough averages over the time I owned the vehicles (almost 26k on the new bu too, so it's numbers don't suffer from too little time). They were obtained using cruise contol, lots of interstate travel, and manually calculated results at the pumps.

A related note- the 3.5l / 4A in the 04 was quite a bit more efficient than the 08's 3.6, partly because the 08 is heavier, and the 3.6 is far more powerful. Still, I think the 3.5 should still be a mainstream option for folks. Too many people buy into the pushrods = old / inferior technology argument though, so GM gives 'em what they want (and think they need).

Hey, you can point out energy content numbers all day, but I keep detailed fuel economy logs, and have for pretty much the past decade. And every vehicle I've owned has consistently returned around 10% lower fuel economy (similar driving style and conditions) when using E10 versus regular non-ethanol blends. There's been some discussion elsewhere that the oil companies may be using lower grade 'gas' for the non-ethanol part, since ethanol effectively raises the octane, and that maybe this has something to do with the larger than expected drop in economy.

Even so, it's a bit hilarious trying to make out that a 10% loss on a non-ethanol prepared car using E10 automatically equates to a 1% loss for every 1% increase in ethanol content in the fuel being used in E85-capable vehicles. Engine tuning is different on the E85 vehicles, as the ECU adjusts for the fuel- my 07 Av, for example, had at least one TSB for a reprogram related to problems because of this.

E10 vs. non-E10 samples for 3 of the vehicles I've owned, all highway trips:

08 Malibu 3.6l (current):
27mpg/30mpg

07 Avalanche LTZ 5.3l 4x4:
18mpg/20mpg

04 Malibu 3.5l V6:
31mpg/34mpg

And these weren't one-time occurances. Those numbers are rough averages over the time I owned the vehicles (almost 26k on the new bu too, so it's numbers don't suffer from too little time). They were obtained using cruise contol, lots of interstate travel, and manually calculated results at the pumps.

A related note- the 3.5l / 4A in the 04 was quite a bit more efficient than the 08's 3.6, partly because the 08 is heavier, and the 3.6 is far more powerful. Still, I think the 3.5 should still be a mainstream option for folks. Too many people buy into the pushrods = old / inferior technology argument though, so GM gives 'em what they want (and think they need).

You can throw out your numbers all day, but in the end they don't mean squat. For those numberous times did you have a controlled environment to run? Did you accelerate the same every single time, run the same distance every single time, make sure the air temperature outside was the same every single time, make sure the traffic was the exact same every single time? No, I don't think so. There are too many variables that will affect gas mileage. Unless you have a the exact same conditions for all tests, your results cannot be considered accurate.

The only thing your numbers are good for are for keeping track of your mileage, and if anything serious goes wrong with the car. You cannot use your results as fact when there are too many factors driving your results. Essentially what you are saying is that ethanol is inert and exerts no power whatsovever.

From the EPA themselves:
Performance. No noticeable difference in vehicle performance when E85 is used.

MPG. FFVs operating on E85 usually experience a 20-30% drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol’s lower energy content.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/ethanol.shtml

If 85% ethanol results in 20-30% loss in fuel economy, how can 10% ethanol result in 10% loss in economy?

You can throw out your numbers all day, but in the end they don't mean squat. For those numberous times did you have a controlled environment to run? Did you accelerate the same every single time, run the same distance every single time, make sure the air temperature outside was the same every single time, make sure the traffic was the exact same every single time? No, I don't think so. There are too many variables that will affect gas mileage. Unless you have a the exact same conditions for all tests, your results cannot be considered accurate.

The only thing your numbers are good for are for keeping track of your mileage, and if anything serious goes wrong with the car. You cannot use your results as fact when there are too many factors driving your results. Essentially what you are saying is that ethanol is inert and exerts no power whatsovever.

From the EPA themselves:
Performance. No noticeable difference in vehicle performance when E85 is used.

MPG. FFVs operating on E85 usually experience a 20-30% drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol’s lower energy content.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/ethanol.shtml

If 85% ethanol results in 20-30% loss in fuel economy, how can 10% ethanol result in 10% loss in economy?


That's just it. None of us drive in a lab environment. Those are real world numbers and those are the kinds of MPG and performance numbers people all over the U.S. are seeing win using the 10% Ethanol blend. I have nothing against the 10% Ethanol blend...BUT it should not be forced on people. I am lucky here in Tulsa. You can still find stations that sale the "real gas".

That's just it. None of us drive in a lab environment. Those are real world numbers and those are the kinds of MPG and performance numbers people all over the U.S. are seeing win using the 10% Ethanol blend. I have nothing against the 10% Ethanol blend...BUT it should not be forced on people. I am lucky here in Tulsa. You can still find stations that sale the "real gas".

Real world and lab environment are the same. Does something in the lab gas change when it reaches the street? No, it's the exact same thing (granted it can vary greatly by the brand of gas). The problem lies in how people drive. If people would drive more conservatively, drive the speed limit, and drive using better judgement, they could achieve nearly the exact same numbers as "unblended" gas (sorry, but ethanol blended is real gas too). The fact is that I live on state borders. I can go to Iowa and get 89 octane 10% ethanol cheaper than the unblended 87 octane in Illinois. I did that non-stop with my Mazda 3. Not only did I obtain personal bests as far as mileage is concerned, I constantly blew both sets of EPA ratings out of the water (Pre-2008/2008 Standards).

I have been keeping record of every single tank of gas for over 8 years now. I've switched between blended and unblended fuels. There has been less than 1-2mpg difference between the two, if any at all. You can believe what you want, but the fact lies in that you will see minimal decrease, if any at all, in mileage with a 10% blend. There are many other factors that affect gas that you guys should be worrying about rather than whether it's 10% blended or not.

So your numbers are more valid than mine? Sure thing, I accept that answer. :rolleyes:

Simply put, my numbers, while not in a LAB environment, are about as controlled as you can get in the real world (aka- weekly work drive, same route, just different fuels, cruise control, follow speed limit, drive to maximize economy, etc.). There are plenty of factors that are still outside my or any drivers' (including your) control. But the fact that the results are CONSISTENT is why I feel safe saying there's a drop with E10 vs. non-E10 blends. Yes, there's a drop for winter / colder weather / rain, windy days, and an increase on warmer days / summer, more passengers, short trips, etc. But the results are consistently better without the blended fuel. :cool:

And I too eclipse EPA ratings, even now, when (just lately) I've stopped trying so hard to get the best fuel economy from my car because I've decided to enjoy driving it. It takes some work and discipline to get the most, but the fuel has also always made a difference too. BTW, this applied in both IL (I lived in the Chicago suburbs for several years) as well as down here in western NC. :)

Anyway, now that I've got my irritation at being told I'm irrational and can't be right out of my system, let's just agree to disagree. I think we both CAN agree that we like our Malibu just the same.

There are many other factors that affect gas that you guys should be worrying about rather than whether it's 10% blended or not.
This is one thing I do agree with. People can see as much or more difference just by changing how they drive as they do from the blend of fuel. I'm at least glad I didn't see anyone arguing that our cars get better mileage on 93 octane than 87.. (had that discussion with my father recently) :p

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ACEFuelEconomyStudy_001.pdf

This is a study performed by an Ethanol trade group so you have to discount the results, but they are saying that the fuel economy drop is only 1.5% when blended at 10%.

Octane above 87 on our cars will not affect fuel economy unless you put some sort of forced air induction system on it. All octane measures is how easily the fuel will pre-combust.

So your numbers are more valid than mine? Sure thing, I accept that answer. :rolleyes:

Simply put, my numbers, while not in a LAB environment, are about as controlled as you can get in the real world (aka- weekly work drive, same route, just different fuels, cruise control, follow speed limit, drive to maximize economy, etc.). There are plenty of factors that are still outside my or any drivers' (including your) control. But the fact that the results are CONSISTENT is why I feel safe saying there's a drop with E10 vs. non-E10 blends. Yes, there's a drop for winter / colder weather / rain, windy days, and an increase on warmer days / summer, more passengers, short trips, etc. But the results are consistently better without the blended fuel. :cool:

And I too eclipse EPA ratings, even now, when (just lately) I've stopped trying so hard to get the best fuel economy from my car because I've decided to enjoy driving it. It takes some work and discipline to get the most, but the fuel has also always made a difference too. BTW, this applied in both IL (I lived in the Chicago suburbs for several years) as well as down here in western NC. :)

Anyway, now that I've got my irritation at being told I'm irrational and can't be right out of my system, let's just agree to disagree. I think we both CAN agree that we like our Malibu just the same.

Who said you were irrational?

My point is that in a lab everything is controlled. If the lab determines you will lose approximately 1.5-3% of your fuel economy due to the 10% blend then that is fact. Any numbers you or I run cannot be used as basis of fact about said 10% blend because there are too many variables to accuratly determine what the mileage should be. My point is that you guys are trying to dog e10 as being the spawn of satan himself when that is not entirely true. You think that the crappy mileage is strictly from the e10 and fail to rationalize (now I'm saying you're being irrational) that many other factors are the main culprit for the decrease in mileage. It is impossible to compare 2 tanks of gas (or any for that matter) to one another.

Who said you were irrational?

My point is that in a lab everything is controlled. If the lab determines you will lose approximately 1.5-3% of your fuel economy due to the 10% blend then that is fact. Any numbers you or I run cannot be used as basis of fact about said 10% blend because there are too many variables to accuratly determine what the mileage should be. My point is that you guys are trying to dog e10 as being the spawn of satan himself when that is not entirely true. You think that the crappy mileage is strictly from the e10 and fail to rationalize (now I'm saying you're being irrational) that many other factors are the main culprit for the decrease in mileage. It is impossible to compare 2 tanks of gas (or any for that matter) to one another.

I agree, the only way you are probably going to get true results is to test the car in a lab, with a stable environment and everything being controlled (acceleration, speed, resistance, etc) by a computer so you can remove all human factors.

Hey, you can point out energy content numbers all day, but I keep detailed fuel economy logs, and have for pretty much the past decade. And every vehicle I've owned has consistently returned around 10% lower fuel economy (similar driving style and conditions) when using E10 versus regular non-ethanol blends. There's been some discussion elsewhere that the oil companies may be using lower grade 'gas' for the non-ethanol part, since ethanol effectively raises the octane, and that maybe this has something to do with the larger than expected drop in economy.

Even so, it's a bit hilarious trying to make out that a 10% loss on a non-ethanol prepared car using E10 automatically equates to a 1% loss for every 1% increase in ethanol content in the fuel being used in E85-capable vehicles. Engine tuning is different on the E85 vehicles, as the ECU adjusts for the fuel- my 07 Av, for example, had at least one TSB for a reprogram related to problems because of this.

E10 vs. non-E10 samples for 3 of the vehicles I've owned, all highway trips:

08 Malibu 3.6l (current):
27mpg/30mpg

07 Avalanche LTZ 5.3l 4x4:
18mpg/20mpg

04 Malibu 3.5l V6:
31mpg/34mpg

And these weren't one-time occurances. Those numbers are rough averages over the time I owned the vehicles (almost 26k on the new bu too, so it's numbers don't suffer from too little time). They were obtained using cruise contol, lots of interstate travel, and manually calculated results at the pumps.

A related note- the 3.5l / 4A in the 04 was quite a bit more efficient than the 08's 3.6, partly because the 08 is heavier, and the 3.6 is far more powerful. Still, I think the 3.5 should still be a mainstream option for folks. Too many people buy into the pushrods = old / inferior technology argument though, so GM gives 'em what they want (and think they need).

I agree with your comment about the 3.5. I took a rented '05 Bu on a LONG road trip a few years ago and I got 31 highway with the 3.5. That's the same as my new '09 Bu with the 2.4 on the same trip. Same ecomony in an engine that has a lot more power? I'll take that any day. That 3.5 is an excellent engine. Or did the 'Bu put on several hundred pounds between 05 and 09 so I'm not comparing apples to apples?

The 'Bu put on about 200-300 lbs depending on the model. It grew a fairly large amount but didnt gain that much weight. An Nbody 'Bu was around 3350 and the Epsilon come in at 3600-3650.

My wife had a 2004 Malibu LT/ w3.5 V-6. @ 99,998 miles the car had used 3,580.204 gallon of gas with and aveage of 27.391 MPG.
When I became aware of the 10% Ethanol (I had a diesel at that time) I resored the next 2500 miles using 10% Ethanol gas she average 25.899 MPG. The next 6,000 miles she averaged 29.959.
We only used Ethanol gas in an emergecy

Ken

I agree with your comment about the 3.5. I took a rented '05 Bu on a LONG road trip a few years ago and I got 31 highway with the 3.5. That's the same as my new '09 Bu with the 2.4 on the same trip. Same ecomony in an engine that has a lot more power? I'll take that any day. That 3.5 is an excellent engine. Or did the 'Bu put on several hundred pounds between 05 and 09 so I'm not comparing apples to apples?

I'm guessing the reason the 3.5 gets as good of, if not better, milage than the 2.4 is due to the 4cyl having to work harder to pull the added weight. My 3.4 Grand Am averaged around17-20mpg city and about 31-33 highway. My wifes 2.2 Alero got around 18-21 city and around 30-32 highway. Both cars weighed about the same.

Who said you were irrational?

My point is that in a lab everything is controlled. If the lab determines you will lose approximately 1.5-3% of your fuel economy due to the 10% blend then that is fact. Any numbers you or I run cannot be used as basis of fact about said 10% blend because there are too many variables to accuratly determine what the mileage should be. My point is that you guys are trying to dog e10 as being the spawn of satan himself when that is not entirely true. You think that the crappy mileage is strictly from the e10 and fail to rationalize (now I'm saying you're being irrational) that many other factors are the main culprit for the decrease in mileage. It is impossible to compare 2 tanks of gas (or any for that matter) to one another.
So much for agreeing to disagree! :p

-It is entirely possible to compare tanks of gas. Individual tanks, no. This is exactly why it's advised to run at least three tanks consecutively when comparing fuels (as from different gas stations). It works pretty much like normal public schools do with kids- you get an overall *average* of results on each (also why I reported the averages above, rather than any two single tanks). It's also true that you have to take into account other factors (controls) as much as possible, and while I can't control the weather, I can and do have complete control over how, when, and where I drive. Since my car does 97% work trips, me only, early in the morning or same time of evening, 95+% highway (same routes), cruise control on, AC off, windows up, and since the gas stations with the fuels in question are on my route (minimal time in other than 'controlled' driving conditions), the *averages* for the two fuels have more meaning than you want to admit.

But trust me, there are obviously times when other factors have been in play. Rain, seasonal fuels, increased humidity, colder temperatures, me getting froggy because of irritating 30mph drivers in 55 zones, etc. DO make a difference. And any of those can be as large or larger a difference than I've observed with E10 vs. E0.

Please understand too- you think I believe ethanol to be satanic, but I don't. I drive using it quite a lot. GM claims that (at least E85 in E85-capable) vehicles actually gain power with it. I've just noted that I DO lose fuel economy, all else being equal. In reality, most folks who aren't as anal as I have been about getting the absolute best fuel economy probably see their results change more from variations in their daily driving style alone than they will from using E10. I'm also attempting to break that compulsion- this car is really entertaining to drive in the twisties for a front-drive family sedan!

The 'Bu put on about 200-300 lbs depending on the model. It grew a fairly large amount but didnt gain that much weight. An Nbody 'Bu was around 3350 and the Epsilon come in at 3600-3650.
I'm not even sure it gained that much. To be fair to the 08+ cars, you should look at the weight for the Malibu Maxx specs, since the 08's use the same extended length version of the platform, rather than the shorter wheelbase that the 04+ sedans had.

Most of the higher fuel economy is probably just the 3.5l engine. I actually had one tank return just over 36 mpg highway in that car (nod to Macleod52 here- conditions were right, but still NO ethanol :D). Most all-highway tanks were easily in the 33-35 mpg range. Keep in mind I was doing my best to drive consistently and conservatively to maximize the fuel economy.

The best I've ever seen with the 08 LTZ 3.6 has been 32.1 so far, and most have been in the 29-30 range.

Just an FYI. I was a little off but its more than I thought it was.

05 Malibu: 3174 Curb weight
08 Malibu: 3536 Curb weight
Maxx: 3476 Curb weight

This has probably been posted before in this thread (its a long one!) but again, check the place you get your gas...When I first got my car (2.4L) I averaged 24 mpg in mixed driving and was getting 34-35 mpg highway. Last couple of weeks I noticed mixed mpg dropping to 20-21 and highway to 29-30. I checked receipts and the last two fill-ups are from a nearby station that I don't normally use. Headed on vacation Friday and will fill-up at the normal station and hope to see improvement!!!

This has probably been posted before in this thread (its a long one!) but again, check the place you get your gas...When I first got my car (2.4L) I averaged 24 mpg in mixed driving and was getting 34-35 mpg highway. Last couple of weeks I noticed mixed mpg dropping to 20-21 and highway to 29-30. I checked receipts and the last two fill-ups are from a nearby station that I don't normally use. Headed on vacation Friday and will fill-up at the normal station and hope to see improvement!!!


Fuel brand may have some role. GM, Toyota and BMW to name a few recommend that you use fuel brands which meet the Top Tier detergent standard.

http://www.toptiergas.com/

hmmm, it was BP gas. Interesting. I would have thought Exxon would be on that list but they don't appear to be.

We do travel a hilly highway almost all the time but again this will not make the gas mileage that bad. Cruise control is ALWAYS used.



Hills can really kill the mileage. I live in upstate NY where the average altitude is about 1000 ft. However, we are surrounded by hills that go as high as 2100 ft. On level ground in the valleys I can get about 31 mpg with my 08 4 cylinder LTZ with the air on and driving in the range of 70 to 75 mph. If I drop the speed to the 65 to 70 range I get about 33 mpg. However, if I travel any distance away from here I am going up and down hill and when I put the mpg read out on instantaneous the mileage drops considerably as I go up a hill. I travel 260 miles to the west quite a bit and go over the highest point on I86 in NY State at around 2100 ft. Going west my mileage averages 29 and driving back it averages 31. I live on a steep hill over looking the valley where the towns and villages are located and my mileage around town (light suburban with a couple of stop signs and 5 or 6 traffic lights) drops to the 19/20 mark because of the hill.

Bill

FYI
Wife's 09 /3.6 a grand total of 2,075 miles has consumed 81.285 gallon of gas all BP except for 2 tanks. Average MPG 25.527 and average cost $2.50 for first month of possession

Some interesting stuff here, thanks all for posting it.

So how accurate is the digital readout vs the old-fashioned manual calculation filling up the tank and tracking mileage driven? I just bought an '09 LT2 4cyl 6a with 6k miles on it. Driving to work (level highway) last week when it was sunny w/low humidity I checked the INST MILEAGE and was getting between 36-42mpg w/cruise @ 63. Today driving the same stretch at the same speed I was getting 34-36 mpg. Only difference was the weather today was cooler but more humid.

Thats the 3.6. We have the 2.4.

Havent taken it to the dealer thanks to us moving and cant take it in before this holiday so its going to go on a good long road trip to TX to see how it does.

FYI: Did another highway trip of about 120 miles, averaged 68 MPH (filled up right before getting on the highway) and the DIC showed 26.7 MPG. Not good at all.

Well update on this. Took an almost 2k mile road trip for the 4th of July and just finally got all the MPG numbers in.

Id say that highway travel was pretty smooth aside from a few slow downs but still averaged right at 70 MPH for most of the trip. Highest was 31.1 MPG and averaged 27.9 MPG overall. Still think something is going on and finally got all settled in to the new place so she is going to the dealer as soon as they can get it in there.

i didn't think the car was rated for anymore than that

I just bought a left over 08 Malibu LT 2 with the 4cyl/4 speed. 90% of my travel is highway at 80 mph in Florida. Hot, Sunny, A/C, etc., I only us premium (91-93) in all my vehicles. Car had 45 miles when I bought it and have just rolled 2k today. Car is averaging 27.2 mpg, which in my personal opinion sucks, I expect 30 out of this car.

I have seen the 10% ethanol labels when I have been filling up, I will start shopping around. Too date I have used BP & Shell, but I didn't realize BP was not on the top tier list so I will strictly use Shell or Chevron and see if things improve.

As for the car itself, I love it. I like the body style, the interior, the stereo, sun roof etc. But I drive round trip a 120 miles a day to get to and from work so I was counting on 30 mpg.

Has anyone done a cold air kit, if so did it improve fuel economy?

Thanks in advance for you assistance...

Car is rated at 33. Best it has got was 31 (prior to that it was 27)with me going SUPER SUPER SUPER easy on the gas and going with the wind and it was down hill the majority of the way. For all the highway miles this car sees its pitiful.

Check out this guys Ecotec with it getting over 40 MPG!!!

http://www.mpgtune.com/vehicleDetails.php?carId=3756

i didn't realize you have the 6 speed that is the difference lol

4 speed 4 cylinder 22 / 30 mpg

6 speed 4 cylinder 22 / 33 mpg

i didn't realize you have the 6 speed that is the difference lol

4 speed 4 cylinder 22 / 30 mpg

6 speed 4 cylinder 22 / 33 mpg
:D

Yea, its quickly forgot that the LTZ has the 6 speed.

BTW the trip averaged 27.637 and almost ALL of it was highway, id venture to say 96%. That is almost 17% lower than the rated highway mileage.

we have noticed that in my cobalt if I keep the RPM under 2k through all 5 gears it gets the best MPGs, But in the Malibu if you baby it to speed it does not get as good mpg as if you get to speed at a medium pace, dont floor it and don't baby it either.

...don't baby it either. Good point! The car should serve you, not the other way around.